So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.

It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?

shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.

It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?

It means you better be a very good player on a lousy team if you want to win it.

shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.

It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?

The problem, really, is holding the Hart in such high regards. The Hart, by definition, is supposed to be award to the "player judged to be the most valuable to his team" as vote by members of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association.

The Lindsay (formerly Pearson), on the other hand, is awarded to the most outstanding player as voted by fellow members of the NHLPA.

Realistically, the Lindsay should be the crown jewel of individual awards. What higher honour is there than being voted the league's most outstanding player by your fellow players? The problem is that since the Hart is a media award, it gets much more hyped by said media than the Lindsay.

Don't think that you should put too much weight on the "most valuable to their team" phrase, too many ways to angle it. For example, you could say most valuable player for the Pens 03/04 would be whoever contributed the most to getting Crosby/Malkin. That one is a bit far fetched, but it's a bit like that when trying to tell the value of Anderson for Ottawa, or how many points Crosby could have had. That's why to have a chance to win it you also have to be among the best players that year, and have sucsess with your team.

shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.

It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?

This is an easy thing to suggest, but it doesn't bear out in reality.

Petr Forsberg, Joe Sakic, and even Sid have Hart trophies from in years that they had a former or Future MVP playing with them. There is an even longer list of players that won the Ross and Hart in the same year and have another guy that was in the top 5-10 in scoring on their team that otherwise would be been middle of the pack.

There's probably an even distribution of both types of winners; the best player on a top team, or a superior performer on a team that is carried forward because of his performance. For the first time, I'd argue that Sid is in both categories, since Chris Kunitz is still in the top 5 in both points and goals.

shmenguin wrote:So really, Sid is never eligible to win hockey's highest honor (according to its definition), despite him being head and shoulders the best player in the league. As long as he plays with malkin, he'll never be more valuable to his team than a bunch of other guys are to theirs.

It's just a lame way to define an award. All for the sake of what - "MVP" being a fun term for people to say?

This is an easy thing to suggest, but it doesn't bear out in reality.

Petr Forsberg, Joe Sakic, and even Sid have Hart trophies from in years that they had a former or Future MVP playing with them. There is an even longer list of players that won the Ross and Hart in the same year and have another guy that was in the top 5-10 in scoring on their team that otherwise would be been middle of the pack.

There's probably an even distribution of both types of winners; the best player on a top team, or a superior performer on a team that is carried forward because of his performance. For the first time, I'd argue that Sid is in both categories, since Chris Kunitz is still in the top 5 in both points and goals.

we're winning without him. so according to the definition of this award, sid is not an MVP.

I’m really torn on what to do about Crosby. He easily was the best player on the planet this season. He brought his game to a level no other player could match. And as late as a few days ago, I still thought I’d give him my first-place vote despite his late-season injury. But the fact he hasn’t played a game in April is beginning to weigh more in my thoughts. The Hart also isn’t for the most outstanding player or the most outstanding season, but rather the MVP. Take that player away from the team and argue what impact it would have.

Well, for Pittsburgh, whether it’s been without Evgeni Malkin or Crosby, the Eastern Conference powerhouse has just kept winning games...

Having said that, how can you not reward Captain Serious in Chicago? The Blackhawks have been the most consistent powerhouse in the NHL this season, a wire-to-wire dominance fueled by the consistent work ethic and performance of their leader.

Toews? If your going to go by the actual definition of "player most valuable to his team" instead of the best player then how can it not be Tavares? The guy is a superstar on a crap team and is dragging them into the playoffs. Toews is the second leading point scorer on the team with probably the deepest roster in the league. I think Crosby should get it but I could somewhat understand someone voting for Tavares. Voting for Toews, however, makes no sense at all.